Federal Register / Vol. 73, No.
80 / Thursday, April 24, 2008 / Notices 22173
of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The negative TAA determination
issued by the Department for workers of
Nortel Networks Corporation, Global
Order Fulfillment, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina was based on the
finding that the worker group does not
produce an article within the meaning
of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner states that the
determination document incorrectly
describes activities performed by the
workers of the subject firm. The
petitioner states that the workers
fulfilled customer orders for
telecommunications network
‘‘solutions’’ and not ‘‘software.’’
The change in the description of the
activities from ‘‘software’’ to ‘‘solutions’’
does not change the fact that the
workers of the subject firm do not
produce an article and do not directly
support production of any kind. The
investigation revealed that the workers
of the subject firm receive, monitor the
progression and process customer
orders, collect data and ensure its
accuracy and fulfillment. These
activities do not constitute production
of an article within the meaning of
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner did not supply facts
not previously considered; nor provide
additional documentation indicating
that there was either (1) a mistake in the
determination of facts not previously
considered or (2) a misinterpretation of
facts or of the law justifying
reconsideration of the initial
determination.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After review of the application and
investigative findings, I conclude that
there has been no error or
misinterpretation of the law or of the
facts which would justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of
March 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–8979 Filed 4–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:15 Apr 23, 2008 Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,688]
SEI Data, Inc., a Subsidiary of SEI
Communications, Dillsboro, IN; Notice
of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated March 7, 2008,
a petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm.
The denial notice was signed on
February 7, 2008 and published in the
Federal Register on February 22, 2008
(73 FR 9836).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c)
reconsideration may be granted under
the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts
not previously considered that the
determination complained of was
erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination
complained of was based on a mistake
in the determination of facts not
previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying
Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The negative TAA determination
issued by the Department for workers of
SEI Data, Inc., a subsidiary of SEI
Communications, Dillsboro, Indiana
was based on the finding that the
worker group does not produce an
article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner states that employment
at the subject firm was negatively
impacted by a shift of job functions to
Canada. The petitioner further states
that regardless whether workers of the
subject firm produce a product or
provide services, they should be
certified eligible for Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
The investigation revealed that the
workers of SEI Communications,
Dillsboro, Indiana are engaged in
activities related to providing technical
support for Internet and telephone
services. These functions, as described
above, are not considered production of
an article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The allegation of a shift to another
country might be relevant if it was
determined that workers of the subject
firm produced an article. Since the
investigation determined that workers of
SEI Communications, Dillsboro, Indiana
PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
do not produce an article however, there
cannot be imports nor a shift in
production of an ‘‘article’’ abroad within
the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974 in
this instance.
The petitioner did not supply facts
not previously considered nor provide
additional documentation indicating
that there was either (1) a mistake in the
determination of facts not previously
considered or (2) a misinterpretation of
facts or of the law justifying
reconsideration of the initial
determination.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After review of the application and
investigative findings, I conclude that
there has been no error or
misinterpretation of the law or of the
facts which would justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of
March 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–8982 Filed 4–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61, 696]
Medtronic, Inc. Cardiovascular
Division, Santa Rosa, CA; Notice of
Revised Determination on Remand
On February 27, 2008, the United
States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Department of
Labor’s motion for voluntary remand for
further investigation in Former
Employees of Medtronic, Inc. v. United
States, Court No. 07–362.
The worker-filed petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA), dated June 14,
2007, alleged that the subject workers
produced ‘‘medical stents’’ and that the
subject firm shifted production to a
foreign country. Petitioners did not
identify the foreign country to which
production shifted.
On July 19, 2007, the Department of
Labor (Department) issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to
apply for TAA/ATAA for workers and
former workers of Medtronic, Inc.,
24APN1